From: rpattree2@gmail.com   
      
   Sociological Analysis of Mold Problems: The Mold Wars   
      
      
   Sociological Analysis of Mold Problems   
      
      
   Ronald G. Corwin obtained his Ph.D. degree in sociology from the   
   University of Minnesota and is now a Professor Emeritus of Sociology   
   at Ohio State University   
      
      
      
      
   The Mold Wars   
      
      
   A seller failed to disclose water intrusions from a leaking ice maker   
   and washer shut off valves, and also said he could not explain stains   
   around the kitchen island. His realtor dismissed an odd odor   
   throughout the house, saying it was coming from an air purifier. After   
   the sale, the buyers (age 74) and their physically impaired adult   
   daughter became sick with headaches, coughing up blood, bleeding   
   through the nose, and related respiratory and pulmonary illnesses. One   
   of them was hospitalized for "atypical" chest pains, tightness in the   
   chest, and breathing problems, all diagnosed as stress related. A   
   certified mold inspection company found massive amounts of toxic mold   
   in three places throughout the house. The inspection report stated   
   that the presence of Stachybotrys and Aspergiallus is indicative of   
   moisture, and that Stachybotrys emits a mycotoxin that may cause a   
   sensitive individual to react with the symptoms the buyers had been   
   experiencing. The sellers refused to take any responsibility for   
   exposing the buyers to health risks. And they could get away with it   
   if the mold advocates have their way.   
      
   _______________________________________________________________________________   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   Maybe it is because so many lawyers and scientists make money working   
   for defendants in toxic mold cases. Maybe it is because otherwise   
   unbiased studies of mold's effects on human health have been flawed.   
   Or, maybe it is because science is simply incapable of answering the   
   tough questions being put before it. For whatever reason, scientific   
   credibility, and with it justice, have become casualties of the mold   
   wars. Though not always deliberate, the ultimate victims are   
   plaintiffs who have been harmed by mold. Influential skeptics are   
   orchestrating attacks on credible evidence that clearly shows black   
   mold is harmful. Courts are using fanciful visions of science to erect   
   unattainable standards of proof. Science is being misused,   
   misconstrued, or simply misunderstood, and the realities involved in   
   applying it to mold cases are being blithely ignored. As a result,   
   some mold victims are being denied evenhanded justice.   
      
        There are abundant reasons for believing that exposure to some   
   types of mold is positively linked to human disease even though the   
   causal chains cannot be fully explained. Yet mold advocates and other   
   skeptics--among them some prominent scientists and health officials, as   
   well as steadfast special interests--continue to question that there is   
   a scientifically proven link between mold and illness, or at least   
   serious illness, in otherwise healthy people. Apparently persuaded by   
   some critics who are labeling research on mold "junk science," some   
   courts seem to be inappropriately applying a test that attempts to   
   separate good from bad science, to the detriment of mold victims.   
   Science is being misused, misconstrued, or simply misunderstood, and   
   the realities involved in applying it to mold cases are being blithely   
   ignored. As a result, some mold victims are being denied evenhanded   
   justice   
      
   Ultimately the issues all come down to this one question: Is mold   
   harmful? That is a straight-forward question. But the answers have   
   been anything but straight forward. Turns out they depend on a host of   
   complex variables, assumptions, and issues. Included among them are   
   characteristics of the victim, of mold, and of illnesses so far   
   studied and not yet studied; standards of acceptable proof; how to   
   treat molds that may only contribute to or aggravate an ailment; the   
   number of victims it takes before mold is counted as a serious threat;   
   and how one regards "minor" reactions, such as skin and mucous   
   irritations, runny nose, congestion, and flu-like symptoms that go   
   away. Truth is, mold advocates do not rate some ailments as "serious,"   
   even though 30 to 60 million people may be affected; that they are   
   making unfounded generalizations long before enormous gaps in the   
   knowledge base have been plugged; and that they minimize threatening   
   risks to people only because they do not always materialize. Legal   
   rules and traditions are obstructing justice for many mold victims.   
   The courts have been complicit and must now decide which type of error   
   to live with: the error of treating potentially dangerous mold as   
   benign, or the error of treating potentially benign mold as   
   dangerous.   
      
        Some resolutions are unfolding through a confluence of   
   controversial research, pressures from business interests, politics,   
   and ultimately court decisions. I show in the following pages that a   
   handful of skeptics who are acting as advocates for mold want us to   
   believe it is benign and are urging us to remain complacent about its   
   potentially damaging effects. Their appeals are based on fallacies and   
   twisted logic designed to prevent victims from substantiating harm   
   from mold. The following review demonstrates there are actually   
   abundant reasons for believing that exposure to some types of mold is   
   positively linked to human disease. Even if the causal chains cannot   
   be fully explained in terms of the chemical interactions involved, the   
   data show that exposure to the mycotoxins present in specific types of   
   mold makes some people sick, and at the very least creates a serious   
   health threat to most people. Skeptics--among them some prominent   
   scientists and health officials, as well as steadfast special interests   
   --continue to question that there is a scientifically proven link   
   between mold and illness, or at least serious illness, in otherwise   
   healthy people.   
      
        Yet, it is telling that even the staunchest doubters do not   
   advocate living with mold, and ironically they often prescribe steps   
   to eradicate it even while denying there is evidence it can be   
   harmful. Of course, a reasonable person can argue that there is   
   nothing wrong with "playing it safe" by avoiding mold even though   
   causal links with adverse effects have not been established. However,   
   that is precisely the point. If a judge or lawyer will not live with   
   mold because of fear, why should a plaintiff be penalized because he   
   or she cannot provide scientific proof of harm? The challenge before   
   the courts is to adjust standards to allow for the distinct   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)